2026-06-25

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am delighted to be moving the Second Reading motion for this important Bill. I am particularly moved to be doing so today in the presence of some important visitors in the Gallery. I acknowledge the presence in particular of Mr. William Gorry of the Residential Institutions Survivors' Network and Mr. David Ryan. I also acknowledge Mr. Ryan's late brother, Mr. Mark Ryan. They did so much between them to expose the reality of abuse in schools. I also acknowledge Ms Deirdre Kenny, CEO of One in Four. I acknowledge those visitors. I should also say that I have been working with many other survivors and their families. Many have come forward to me over recent days and many are watching the debate on this Bill on Oireachtas TV. I will begin by saluting the courage of all those survivors who have spoken out, disclosed and shone a light on a dark and shameful chapter in the history of this country in highlighting the reality of their lived experience of abuse as children. Indeed, I acknowledge the many survivors who cannot speak out for other reasons and who continue to suffer. We all think of them and what they have endured. It is in that context that I am glad to be moving the Second Reading of this Bill. If passed, it will be an Act to facilitate the bringing of child sexual abuse proceedings against unincorporated bodies of persons. It seeks to enable such a body to pay damages arising from such proceedings and from the assets of an associated trust, to extend the limitation period arising from claims of child sexual abuse and to provide for connected matters. This Bill creates what I have been referring to as an "unblocking mechanism". Its purpose is to unblock the process of seeking redress from religious bodies and associated lay-run trusts. It would facilitate the bringing of child sexual abuse proceedings against unincorporated bodies of persons, notably religious orders, and would empower survivors to recover damages arising from such proceedings, not only from the orders but also from the assets of an associated trust in certain circumstances. It would extend the limitation period provided for by the Statute of Limitations in respect of civil proceedings arising from claims of child sexual abuse. This is a Bill I have been working on for some years. In a previous life as a practising barrister, I represented many survivors of abuse before what was then known as the Residential Institutions Redress Board, which operated in the 1990s into the 2000s, as the Minister will be aware. These were proceedings arising out of abuse perpetrated, in most cases, against children in industrial schools. I will never forget hearing about the experiences of the survivors I represented, the utterly chilling accounts of the terrible abuse they suffered at the hands of both religious and lay figures employed in industrial schools, many of which were run by religious orders. The experiences were shocking. Desperate damage, harm and hurt were caused to many people. Individuals spoke to me of suicidal ideation as a result of their childhood experiences, of their ongoing difficulties in sustaining relationships and of their fears of passing on the effects of the trauma they had suffered to their children. At the time, it was important that the State made attempts to ensure redress. The Minister will recall, as I do, the difficulties with the Woods cap on the amount of redress to be paid by the religious orders in the 2002 deal. Quite apart from that cap, however, the scheme was also flawed in other ways, and victims were retraumatised by being dragged through lengthy and unnecessarily adversarial proceedings. In the context of the 2002 Woods deal and subsequent attempts to secure contributions to redress from religious orders, we have seen successive Governments - the State - bearing the vast bulk of the cost of redress. Of course, the State remains responsible. Religious orders were also responsible, but they have got away with paying nothing like their fair share. The Woods deal applied a cap of €128 million. The total cost of the Residential Institutional Redress Board scheme is now estimated at €1.5 billion. I am working with a number of survivors groups to improve the State’s response to dealing with the awful legacy of church-State collusion against some of the most vulnerable members of Irish society, particularly children. I am also working with groups like the Residential Institutions Survivor's Network, which I have spoken about and on behalf of which I recently wrote to the Taoiseach and the Ministers for education and Social Protection. That group has identified a litany of flaws in current State redress schemes and schemes to support victims. Survivors are often retraumatised by their exclusion through application of apparently arbitrary rules, inadequate redress processes or simply by unduly bureaucratic and insufficiently compassionate responses such as a helpline that does not deal in a compassionate and kind way with survivors who contact it. That is the kind of basic thing the State should be getting right. We heard this week from 19 of the women who were abused by Leo Hickey in Dunderrow National School but who were excluded from redress schemes, so there is a great deal to do to ensure that the State’s response to the legacy of child abuse is survivor led and that the State is kind and compassionate in its approach to those who are now adults but who were abused as children. Much of the work to deliver justice has also been stymied by the religious orders by means of obfuscation, delaying tactics and the deployment of entirely legal but unethical devices which have the effect of them avoiding paying their share of redress. The Bill stems from my desire to do right by survivors. It is my belief and that of the Labour Party that no organisation, church or State, should be able to hide from or escape accountability. For many years, we have been aware of the practice whereby religious orders have shifted their assets into lay-run trusts that have no legal liability to survivors. The orders which have the liability have much fewer trusts that can be targeted. I hasten to add that the legislation I am proposing is not limited to religious orders. It would apply to all unincorporated bodies, including sports clubs, political parties and so on. Clearly, what we are seeking to address is the deployment of what we might refer to as lawfare, that is, legal tactics deployed with a detrimental effect. Such tactics are used by religious orders in particular. The orders are using the law to frustrate the efforts of those seeking redress for terrible damage inflicted on them in childhood. Lay-run trusts that hold the assets bear no legal liability and, therefore, the State lacks leverage when it seeks to recover a proportion of redress from the religious orders. I spoke about the 2002 deal, but there have been numerous attempts since then by the State to recover a share of compensation or redress from the religious orders. There have been attempts to secure voluntary contributions from the religious orders. There was Sheila Nunan's process, but none of these processes have delivered anything like the share of redress we would expect from religious orders that are serious about meeting obligations. Religious orders must answer serious ethical questions about how they have engaged with the State and with survivors of abuse. One of the first moral lessons any of us teach our children, regardless of faith, relates to the need for honesty when we have done wrong and the need to step up, admit we have done wrong and ensure accountability. We cannot say the response of religious orders to historical sex abuse of children has embodied that principle. These are sneaky tactics being used by institutions that purport to show moral leadership in our society. Appeals to the moral duties of religious orders have clearly not worked. I refer to the processes we have seen over the years in which religious orders have not stepped up. A recent study in The Sunday Times estimated that €755 million in compensation to victims of abuse is still outstanding from religious orders. Meanwhile, EY compiled a recent study, which I understand was commissioned by the Minister's Department, which found that a sample of religious orders hold €1.3 billion in assets. The money is there and the assets are there, and we are talking about the most heinous of crimes perpetrated against children. It seems that religious orders are displaying more concern for their reputations and the bottom line than they are for victims. It is the job of the Government and legislators to make sure that religious orders cannot continue to deploy this indefensible practice. I brought forward this Bill - I have spoken about it in the House on several occasions - in an attempt to be constructive and to ensure we do our bit to make sure that religious orders pay their share. I welcome that the Government has established a high-level interdepartmental group to advise it in respect of the funding of future redress claims in the same way that I welcomed the establishment of the commission of investigation into abuse in schools. It will be quite a long process before the commission reports, and we have heard that the interdepartmental group's report is not due until May 2027. I welcomed the Taoiseach’s confirmation on Tuesday that he will make efforts to bring forward the date of the of the interdepartmental group’s report, because May 2027 is a long way off. Survivors who have waited decades for justice should not be kept waiting any longer than is absolutely necessary. That is why, while I welcomed the commitment by the Taoiseach to bring forward the date of the publication of the group's report, I was disappointed to hear him say that the Government will seek to impose a six-month delay on the Second Stage reading of this Bill. Not only am I disappointed, I do not understand it. I published this Bill years ago. It has been nearly two years since I was told that the previous Government had referred it to the Attorney General’s office for consideration. I introduced the Bill on First Stage in December, and the Taoiseach has said it aligns with Government priorities. The Tánaiste spoke just this week about the need to ensure that religious orders pay their share. Why does the Government need to delay the Second Stage reading for a further six months? We in the Labour Party are happy to work with the Minister and his team to scrutinise the Bill in order to make sure that it passes muster and that the mechanisms in it to ensure accountability of religious orders and associated trusts are watertight. We are happy to accept amendments and to work with the Minister to see the Bill become law, but we do not believe another six months will be required before it can move to the Committee Stage. I asked the Minister previously about bringing forward a Bill like this. He indicated that he would wait for recommendations from the Law Reform Commission. He will see that in the explanatory memorandum of our Bill, we refer to the consultation paper on unincorporated associations published previously by the Law Reform Commission. The report is still awaited, but we have used the consultation paper and what has been done already in drafting this Bill and can see no reason – legal or political – for the kind of can-kicking that a six-month delay represents. I return to the matter of the courage of survivors. Over decades, extraordinarily brave people have come forward to expose this dark chapter. That disclosure comes at a personal cost. Survivors should not have to go public with their stories in order to see action taken. They should not have to go public only to be told to wait longer for recognition. The Dunderrow women spoke of abuse in respect of which a conviction was secured in 1998, yet they are still waiting for redress. Survivors have spoken out to ensure that the State will confront the appalling abuse perpetrated against them and other children in schools and institutions, many of which were run by religious orders. We want to do more than praise and pay tribute to survivors. We want to ensure that they get justice. In many cases, survivors have tried to pursue justice through the courts but have found themselves thwarted by legal structures that frustrate accountability and that obstruct the taking of legal action through the use of unincorporated associations. There is no justification for seeking a further six-month delay. We simply cannot support that and we will be challenging that attempt, if indeed that is what the Minister will propose. I mentioned the 19 women who have come forward in the past few days to speak about their abuse in Dunderrow National School. We have also recently heard other terrible accounts of abuse of children in the past. We were reminded of this with the death last week of the notorious abuser Bill Kenneally. We were reminded by the RTÉ documentary that highlighted the appalling decades perpetrated by Eamonn Cooke upon his victims and we heard this week of the conviction in the North of Jeffrey Donaldson. Again and again these stories of the abuse of power against children have exposed a deep trauma that exists in Irish society. We are all aware that when the commission of investigation reports - I think it is not due to until 2030 - it will provide another indication of the huge extent of the abuse that was perpetrated against children. Fortunately, we have reformed procedures and processes and Ireland and Irish schools and institutions are much safer now. We have made this society safer for children but we must accept there is unfinished business. One such piece of unfinished is the shortfall in compensation left unpaid by religious organisations that have cash and property assets running into the billions. We are asking the Minister to do the right thing and ensure we can see this Bill go through to the next Stage. We will work with him through Committee and Report Stages to get it into law. It aligns with Government priorities, will not cost the State a cent and will indeed facilitate leverage for the State in negotiations with the religious orders where currently there is no mechanism to ensure they can be made to pay compensation. This will provide such a mechanism and that is why I speak of it as an unblocking mechanism. I am asking the Minister to do right by survivors and to pass this Bill rather than delaying it for a further six months.

I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following: "Dáil Éireann resolves that the Civil Liability (Child Sexual Abuse Proceedings Against Unincorporated Bodies of Persons) Bill 2025 be deemed to be read a second time this day six months, to allow for the consideration of the legal and policy implications of the Bill's provisions to be undertaken.". I thank Deputy Bacik for introducing this Bill. Like her I welcome to the Public Gallery William Gorry, David Ryan and Deirdre Kenny. At the end of her contribution, Deputy Bacik referred to survivors and it is appropriate we, as legislators, recognise the very significant impact survivors can have on policy and legislation through their bravery in coming forward and providing further information in respect of the trauma they went through. Sometimes I do not think survivors and victims of crime recognise the impact and influence they have. They may not realise how influential they are when it comes to the consequences of their narratives but Deputy Bacik will agree with me when I say it is hugely influential from the point of view of legislators. I assure them also that from the point of view of a Minister, policy is very much affected by the narratives I hear from victims of crime and survivors of sexual abuse. As Deputy Bacik indicated, her Bill seeks to facilitate civil proceedings in respect of child sexual abuse cases against unincorpororated bodies, such as religious orders, and to facilitate the recovery of damages awarded from any such body, including from any trusts associated with it. It also seeks - and this is a more complicated provision - to provide for a one-year window outside the normal limitation period provided for in the Statute of Limitations to enable any proceedings to which the Bill would apply to be brought within 12 months, if enacted. That latter provision is a significant one, as I am sure the Deputy appreciates, and is part of the reason there is a necessity for me to seek a six-month adjournment prior to the Bill moving to the next Stage. In fairness to the Deputy, I think she acknowledges most religious orders select a nominee to represent them in child sexual abuse cases but, unfortunately, this is not always the case. The refusal of some religious orders, or, indeed, any unincorporated bodies, to co-operate with or contribute to previous redress schemes is a matter of considerable trauma and distress for survivors of sexual abuse and their families. It is a difficult and concerning aspect of this awful legacy. I assure the House the Government and I share the dissatisfaction expressed by the Deputy about this issue and I also wish to inform the House this Government is actively looking at possible avenues to ensure those responsible for the running of the schools where sexual abuse occurred are accountable. In that regard, I will give a brief overview of the work currently being undertaken in this area. A commission of investigation into the handling of historical child sexual abuse in schools has been established following the publication of the report of a scoping inquiry by Mary O’Toole SC in September 2024. That is an example of the impact survivors have had on policy-making because it was as a result of the documentary made by RTÉ, inspired by the experience of David and the late Mark Ryan, that the aforementioned scoping inquiry was established, leading in turn to the establishment of a commission of investigation. The commission, which is chaired by Mr. Justice Michael MacGrath, is independent in the performance of its functions and is currently in its establishment phase undertaking essential preparatory work. The task of the inquiry is huge. Four commissioners have been appointed to join the chair in leading the work of the commission, namely, Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring, Mr. Roddy Bourke, Ms Michele Clarke and Mr. Kieran McGrath. The report of the interdepartmental group established to advise the Minister and the Government on the recommendations of the scoping inquiry was published in July 2025. This report was cognisant of the views of survivors in relation to redress as a measure of accountability. Recommendation 2 of that scoping inquiry stated consideration should be given by the Government to establishing a redress scheme for survivors of historical sexual abuse in day and boarding schools run by the religious orders. Not only was that recommendation given consideration by Government but we abided by it and followed it and as a result we have the commission of investigation in place. The interdepartmental group recognised consideration of a redress scheme may have far-reaching implications and advised a further phase of more detailed work was required to ensure Government is fully informed in any decision it may take. In considering this recommendation, an interdepartmental subgroup of the interdepartmental group was set up in November 2025 to examine the complex issues in establishing such a scheme, including how it might be funded. This subgroup comprises representatives from several Government Departments, State agencies and representatives from the Office of the Attorney General. The purpose of the work of this group is to examine and evaluate key legal and other potential measures to require that those responsible for schools where sexual abuse occurred meet their redress obligations to survivors. This is with a view to informing Government of its findings on possible mechanisms for redress. The subgroup aims to report to the Minister for Education and Youth, and subsequently Government, by May 2027. As Deputies can imagine, the issues to be considered in this area are extremely difficult and time-consuming. This work includes consideration of complicated administrative, legal, financial and other mechanisms, including how any potential scheme might be appropriately funded by those responsible. It also includes examination of international approaches to redress, including models in Ireland, other common law and EU jurisdictions. The underlying aims of Deputy Bacik's Bill align in part with the matters currently being considered by the interdepartmental subgroup. Many of these complex legal, policy and operational considerations are relevant to those contained in the Bill. Given the intricate and challenging nature of these issues, many aspects of this Bill raise legal and constitutional considerations which must be thoroughly examined and approved by the Office of the Attorney General. By way of illustration, the Bill raises complex issues in respect of the apportionment of liability on unincorporated bodies, measures regarding the associated trusts of unincorporated bodies and trusts formerly associated with an unincorporated body. The area of unincorporated bodies and associations is exceptionally complex in law. To that end, in 2022 the Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper entitled Liability of Clubs, Societies and other Unincorporated Associations. It sought submissions from the public. The report of the Law Reform Commission will be important to the development of the law in this area. To give the House a sense of how complex the issues regarding unincorporated bodies are, my Department understands that the Law Reform Commission’s report will not be published before early 2028. The Bill provides for the nomination of a proper defendant by an unincorporated body or, if no such nomination is forthcoming, for the court to appoint a proper defendant. The reason Deputy Bacik has included this is that if there is a legal person who can be sued, whether it is a corporate identity or an individual, that is the appropriate way to go. Unfortunately, in the case of an unincorporated body or a loose association of people, it is difficult to sue that identity unless a representative name is provided. In most instances, as I said, unincorporated bodies that are defendants or intended defendants will provide a representative name. However, as Deputy Bacik is aware, that is not always the case. It places a litigant who wants to institute proceedings in a difficult position if they are not given a representative name that can be used as the representative defendant in any proceedings. The effect is that people’s proceedings are delayed and they may have to go through a complicated court application based on no statutory regime to grant them authority from the court to issue proceedings against an individual who may be identified by the court. The advantage of Deputy Bacik’s Bill, if enacted, is that there would be a statutory mechanism that sets out a procedure for how the court can nominate or identify a person who will be the nominated defendant for the purpose of proceedings. The Bill provides for the nomination of a proper defendant by an unincorporated body or, if no such nomination is forthcoming for the court, to appoint a proper defendant. The apportionment of direct liability on individuals, who have no knowledge of an allegation or may not have been associated with the relevant body at the time of the alleged harm, raises serious issues regarding constitutionality and fair procedures that must be thoroughly examined. It is easier in circumstances where a partnership is being sued. While it itself is an unincorporated identity, if a partnership of solicitors or accountants needs to be sued, the appropriate mechanism is to name all of the partners. There can only be a limited number. However, the difficultly that arises, which is inspiring Deputy Bacik’s Bill, is when it comes to an identity such as a religious order. To be frank, it is implausible to try to institute proceedings against every single member of that religious order, particularly when there is a requirement for the purpose of proceedings that court papers, whether plenary summons or statements of claim, are served on each defendant. It is clearly the case that there is a huge advantage in having a statutory mechanism available that allows the court to nominate an appropriate individual as the nominated defendant. It is also important to point out, however, as I mentioned earlier, that the Bill raises practical and legal concerns regarding prospective knowledge of awards of damages and issues in relation to the retrospective effect of the legislation, including for cases already initiated and live before the courts. More importantly, the Bill proposes a one-year window outside the limitation period provided for in the Statute of Limitations to enable any proceedings to which the Bill applies to be brought within 12 months of its enactment. It would also appear to revive expired causes of action. Reform of the Statute of Limitations would have implications for the State, not just the cohort identified in the Bill. In effect, one of the complicating and complex issues raised and provided for in Deputy Bacik’s Bill is that cases that are, at present, statute-barred would no longer be statute-barred in certain circumstances because of this one-year extension provided to the statute, pursuant to the terms of this Bill. As Deputy Bacik will appreciate, this is a complex legal and constitutional issue. Given the legal policy and constitutional complexity of the issues contained in the Bill and those currently being examined by the interdepartmental subgroup, the views of the Office of the Attorney General were sought again. It indicated that there are significant and complex policy and legal issues that require further in-depth analysis. Deputy Bacik inquired what the reason is for a six-month timed amendment. For the purpose of individuals in the Gallery, a timed amendment means there is a vote on the Second Stage of the Bill, and I am proposing a timed amendment of six months. The effect of that will mean that the legislation will pass Second Stage on the 25 December 2026. It puts a time period on it and ensures that Second Stage will be passed. While that time will pass quickly, it provides my Department and the Office of the Attorney General with an opportunity to consider the complex legal issues identified here. I know Deputy Bacik will be anxious to ensure that this legislation proceeds promptly. Certainly, it will pass Second Stage by the end of the year. During that period, I will have an opportunity to secure further advice from the Office of the Attorney General and internally within my Department. I was the person who proposed at government on Tuesday that we have a timed amendment. In general, as colleagues will know, timed amendments generally operate for a period of a year but I sought six months in this instance. Having that time period will enable me to get the necessary advice that I require. I assure Deputy Bacik that if there are mechanisms to advance her legislation, I will have no difficulty in advancing them or adopting the Bill and trying to reformulate it if some changes are needed. I conclude by saying that I brought the memorandum to Government seeking approval for this Bill be read a Second Time on this day six months to allow for consideration of the legal and policy implications of provisions of the Bill. I confirm this was endorsed by Cabinet. I thank Deputy Bacik and commend her on the legislation. I recognise its importance. Although this measure may only be necessary in limited circumstances, it is nonetheless a statutory provision that should be in place to enable people to bring proceedings.

I begin by saying how proud I am that the Labour Party and my colleague, Deputy Bacik, are bringing forward this Bill today. I also welcome the visitors to the Public Gallery. This is a Bill about fairness, accountability and justice. It is a Bill that is rooted in the bravery of survivors who have refused to be silent and simply roll over and take whatever paltry offers come their way. This country’s history during the last century was, for far too many of its citizens, one of abuse and failure. We are all too aware of the many revelations that have emerged and continue to emerge in recent decades. We have all heard the horrific stories of what was inflicted on innocent children and women behind the high walls of religious institutions in cities, towns and villages across this island. We will never know the real extent of the lives destroyed by institutional abuse during those dark decades. There is a moral obligation on this State and us, as legislators, sitting in our national Parliament to do by right by survivors. Successive governments have recognised that moral imperative. That is what led to the redress schemes that followed the Ryan report, the report on the mother and baby and county homes and other reports. Many of those schemes have been deeply flawed and have, at times, retraumatised victims and their families. Indeed, my wife, Maeve O’Rourke, and her colleagues in Justice for Magdalenes Research and the Clann Project have been to the forefront in advocating for justice for survivors of Magdalene laundries and mother and baby homes. They advocate for redress schemes that are not exclusionary and that live up to the promises of the reports and recommendations that proceeded them. The redress schemes introduced have at least showed an understanding on the part of the State that there was a wrong to be righted. The attitude, meanwhile, of certain religious orders has fallen short of that. We have seen the reports of mixed engagement from religious orders on redress. We have heard the stories right from the mouths of the brave survivors who have had to go through the difficult retraumatising experience of the courts to get the redress they are owed. We know that many of the orders that facilitated, enabled and covered up child sexual abuse for years and years continue to hide behind the legal fiction of lay-run trusts to escape accountability for the horrors they caused. There is a veil of fog around the financial affairs of these orders that is troubling. The total value of assets held by religious congregations, orders and institutions is unknown, despite a number of official processes that sought to estimate these resources. After the mother and baby homes report was published, negotiations with eight religious bodies involved in those institutions sought to secure financial contributions. Only two organisations responded to requests for specific financial information and five did not offer any contribution. We know these are wealthy organisations. An analysis of the financial returns provided by a sample group of religious congregations to the Charities Regulator has shown that collectively they have had approximately €1.3 billion in cash and other assets. What we are really talking about here is impunity. These are wealthy, powerful groups of people who protected abusers in their ranks and now protect themselves from the consequences. I have to say, having gone to one of their schools, the Christian Brothers, CBs, are notorious. It seems that as a policy they do not nominate a defendant to a court case. They use their unincorporated status to avoid accountability. It is sickening to see. This Bill is about saying, "No more." We should not have to accept this. Survivors should not have to accept it. We clearly cannot rely on any spirit of Christian charity from these orders. It is time to get tough and to get survivors the redress they deserve. We can start to legislate for that here this evening if the Government chooses to support this important Bill. The Bill will enable the recovery of damages from these religious orders and the lay-run trusts into which they have moved their assets. No longer will the grubby practice of lay-run trusts shielding orders from providing redress be possible. In short, it would deliver accountability at last. I welcome some of the comments made by the Minister and the encouraging noises from the Taoiseach earlier this week about Deputy Bacik's Bill and how it aligns with Government priorities. This day six months will obviously be Christmas Day. I put it to the Minister that in deferring the Bill for six months, he is acting as the anti-Santa. He is delaying justice. I appreciate it is a complex issue but we have been talking about this for a long time. I urge the Minister to put all his resources into getting the complex legal issues at the heart of this Bill sorted as quickly as possible, and deliver accountability and justice for survivors at long last who just cannot keep waiting.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and thank Deputy Bacik and the Labour Party for bringing it forward. Sinn Féin supports this legislation and any step towards ensuring that survivors of institutional abuse can finally access the justice they have been denied for so long. I welcome the visitors to the Gallery. For decades, survivors have shown immense courage in their fight for recognition and redress. They have campaigned tirelessly to break the silence of a shameful chapter in our history. Sinn Féin has consistently stood with them, as we did when we brought forward amendments to the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill to provide for a contributory State pension, a full Health (Amendment) Act, HAA, medical card and other supports to reflect the intergenerational trauma suffered. Another amendment I proposed at that time was commensurate compensation from religious orders, that "Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall prepare a comprehensive plan to deliver commensurate compensation from Religious Orders, this to include a consideration of every avenue of recourse and a timeline of engagements and actions, in pursuit of the public good.". That was an amendment that we proposed, but the Government had other plans. Those plans serve only to delay and deny. I listened to the Minister. I do not know if he was going for a record in terms of mentioning the word "complex" in one Dáil statement. I am not legally qualified. I think I am the first person to speak on this so far who is not legally qualified. I recognise that these issues are complex but when I hear complexity, I hear a bureaucratic governmental language that serves only to delay. Let us act with haste here and pursue these issues aggressively to deliver justice. That is not to do a disservice to the complexity of them at all. The Bill before us is a direct response to repeated failures by the State to compel religious orders and other unincorporated bodies to pay their fair share. It is a further stain on this Government that it has taken so long to act. Successive Administrations have failed to hold these institutions accountable, leaving survivors to navigate a labyrinth of legal obstacles while religious orders engaged in legal and financial manoeuvring to shield their assets, which, I believe, is a deliberate conscious decision on their part. The core of this Bill is about ending that evasion. It will allow civil proceedings to be brought directly against unincorporated bodies and remove the absurd legal barrier that has prevented survivors from suing organisations directly. Importantly, it provides a mechanism to access the assets of associated trusts, preventing orders from hiding behind complex structures to avoid their responsibilities. This aligns with Sinn Féin's stated position that everything must be on the table, including legal action and the seizure of assets, to ensure these institutions, orders and organisations contribute to redress. For too long, the Government has offered only tea and sympathy. The State has failed survivors in their early years and has continued to fail them in their later years. Today, we have a chance to right a wrong. The Government should allow this Bill to progress, with no six-month delay. If there are technical concerns, they can be addressed in committee. What cannot be countenanced is further obstruction or delay. It is incumbent on the Government to facilitate the Bill's scrutiny through the relevant Oireachtas sectoral committee. This is a reasonable request. The interdepartmental group, IDG, is examining redress for historical sexual abuse in schools. In recent responses to me, the Minister for education said that the IDG is examining the mechanisms that can be brought to bear to ensure that any future redress scheme is appropriately funded by those who were responsible for the schools where child sexual abuse took place. These mechanisms may include any administrative, legal, financial or other processes that can assist Government in its consideration of the issue of redress and how any scheme to be considered might be funded by those responsible for schools where sexual abuse occurred. We do not know what will come of this review but time is of the essence and we cannot countenance any unnecessary delay. Most importantly, this cannot be a case of tinkering at the edges. This has to be ambitious and aggressive in its pursuit of what is right; that those who perpetrated these harms are held accountable. It is a matter of justice. Any future redress scheme must be funded properly by those responsible and this Bill is a helpful tool to achieve that. I urge all sides of the House to support its passage.

First of all, I thank my colleague and party leader, Deputy Bacik, for bringing this Bill forward. I also welcome the visitors to the Gallery. This Bill is timely for two reasons. It is timely because it addresses one of the most disgusting and hideous aspects of our shameful past, namely, the abuse perpetuated by religious orders and facilitated by the State. Many religious orders hold substantial wealth, particularly in terms of property and land, yet many refuse to engage and refuse to pay compensation for the horrendous damage they inflicted on poor innocent undeserving people. This Bill is also timely because in the week in which it has come up for debate, we have seen the conviction of two vile paedophiles who were two men in positions of authority and influence - Leo Hickey and Jeffrey Donaldson. For decades, the State has grappled with the dark, painful and deeply stained legacy of institutional abuse. We have sat in this Chamber and listened to statements. We have listened to apologies and we have all read reports. We read the reports into the mother and baby homes. Some of us read the Ryan report. Time and again, we have seen brave courageous survivors stand up, recount their deepest traumas and ask this country to do one simple thing, which is to get them accountability. Yet, on many occasions they have been met with a State redress scheme that is cold, bureaucratic, adversarial and forces them to repeatedly prove they are not lying. If the State's failures are cause for deep concern, the utter moral bankruptcy of certain religious orders is worse. We need to call this out for what it is. This is a masterclass in corporate evasion by institutions that claim they are Christian, but whose actions, in reality, are anything but. Culpable religious orders are actively dodging their responsibilities. They are using grubby, dirty, cynical legal tactics to place their vast wealth and considerable assets completely out of reach. They move properties and millions of euro into lay-run trusts, drawing a legal curtain between their riches and money, and the victims they broke, bruised and failed - vulnerable people who were, in many cases, in their care. The recent scoping inquiry noted "mixed engagement" from the orders on redress. In my view, "mixed" is a laughable term to use. It is almost a euphemism for literally whacking the door shut on survivors. We cannot continue the same failed approach of asking religious orders to, effectively, appeal to their better nature. That approach has failed us for nearly 30 years. It is time for the State to force their hand. I want to read an excerpt from an email I received from a constituent of mine who is a survivor of Sean Ross Abbey, which outlines eloquently the core of the issue: If the State truly understood the lifelong damage caused to women and children by mother and baby homes, it would never have designed the redress scheme as it did. Women entered these institutions at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives, and many arrived frightened, alone and ashamed, often having already been rejected by their families and communities. Instead of compassion, proper maternity care and support, women in Sean Ross Abbey experienced fear, humiliation and inadequate care. Women have spoken about being left in pain during childbirth and being told to offer up their suffering for their sins. Many mothers left these institutions without their babies. Many children grew up not knowing who they were, where they came from or why they had been separated from their mothers. This trauma did not end when the doors of these institutions closed because women and children continue to live with the physical and emotional consequences today, and many still require counselling and support decades later. No amount of money can compensate mothers and children for the trauma, abuse and lifelong consequences of what happened in mother and baby homes. However, the State has effectively decided what that suffering is worth. The redress scheme tells its own story, with the arbitrary cut-offs and medical card eligibility issues once again reducing lifelong trauma and its consequences to a simple calculation of days. Recently, two survivors successfully challenged their exclusion from the redress scheme through the courts. The Government's response was not to accept these decisions; it was to appeal. Only weeks after the Minister stood in the Dáil and apologised to survivors, the State is once again forcing survivors through the courts. Survivors are looking for justice, for accountability and for religious orders to pay what they owe. It is shocking that in 2026, mothers out there who are survivors of these institutions have no clue - and may never have a clue - where their dead children are buried. When survivors consistently seek answers about what happened, information remains unavailable and important questions remained unanswered. Apologies have been made, reports have been published and legislation has been introduced, but for many people time is running out. I note with deep disappointment the Minister of State's amendment providing for a six-month time delay, because some of these survivors may not have six months. The Bill my colleague has introduced provides the legal teeth to break through these trusts and recover the damage that is rightfully owed to survivors. No survivor should have to resort to dragging themselves through an adversarial court system to fight for their dignity. If an institution facilitated, enabled and covered up the horrific sexual abuse of children, that institution must pay what is owed. We have given the Minister of State a mechanism to act; please use it.

Hear, hear.

I thank Deputy Bacik and the Labour Party for this Bill. I welcome the visitors to the Public Gallery. I am sure it is not easy for them to listen to the back and forth on something that should be an easy and straightforward thing to do. The Social Democrats welcome this Bill. We are disappointed in the Government for the six-month delay. As has been said, perhaps some people do not have six months, and have waited a very long time for redress. As I have listened to this debate, it has struck me how many debates are had in this Chamber on this topic. I am sure previous speakers have said this already, but when people contact me to tell me what happened to them as a child, it is absolutely horrific to read the words, to hear people on the phone and to try to understand what a child experienced at the hands of an adult in this country. I am also absolutely certain this is not historic. I know we are talking about historic at present, but this is going on now. The reality is that they were alone as children. They were scared and vulnerable, but we do not seem to be able to understand that. When that person receives redress, that does not mean it wipes away the pain, the hurt and everything that happened to them as a child. Redress does not wipe that away. It is not an erasure, but a recognition that the wrongs that happened to that child were not and are not acceptable. It does not take away the pain, but it is a recognition. Going back for a moment, "RTÉ Investigates" had a very interesting documentary, which I am sure people have seen, that explained very clearly how the religious orders use these unincorporated bodies to hide their assets. To be very clear, these religious orders are still running schools. They are called something different; they are not called the Christian brothers but something else. They are still running schools, and have all these unincorporated bodies and resources. At the time of several redress schemes, the religious orders said they did not have the money to contribute as much to them. They did not have the money, yet over a 35-year period they sold 800 properties. They got rid of them; they had the money, so they were able to generate it. We were talking about dereliction earlier this week. The Department of education owns a huge amount of vacant properties that would have come originally through religious orders, so there are plenty of resources. However, these are organisations that successfully hid paedophiles in every nook and cranny of every institution and educational building. They were able to hide them so well, and now they are hiding in every nook and cranny any piece of property, cash or resources they have so that they do not have to feed back into the redress system. That is their responsibility. Yes, it is the responsibility of the State, but it is the responsibility of the people who perpetrated these horrific crimes on children to pay for that. The "RTÉ Investigates" documentary reported that there were members of the Christian brothers organisation who were not only paedophiles, but were also responsible for setting up the structures and making sure the resources were not able to be used. That is something that came as a shock to many people. This is a State failure, but we cannot pass the buck to others. We need to ensure mechanisms of the State are able to reach into those orders and get behind the red tape. It is fixable. I suppose I am a little frustrated because if you think if there is a problem, you fix it. There is a solution here; Deputy Bacik is giving a very clear and easy solution. We are able to tackle these unincorporated bodies. I had somebody contact me by email - I am not going to give his name because I do not have permission - who told me he has to sue 120 Christian brothers. That is in the High Court. It is not acceptable to hide behind this. For people who maybe do not understand, trauma has a way of incorporating every part of your body - sorry for the pun there. It takes over your whole body and mind. To be able to deal with sexual abuse trauma and then have to navigate a system that is set against you is absolutely cruel and is totally avoidable. Going back to the survivors for a minute, it is utterly heartbreaking. I keep saying "heartbreaking". I am a mother. I have children. I keep thinking of how the survivors were failed, but we are continuing to fail them. We keep coming back in here, talking about it, proposing things and then delaying it. I do not understand why we are delaying it. Maybe that is how survivors feel. They do not understand why so many barriers and blockages have to be put in their way, when the State is saying it sees them, hears them and will do redress, but it will only do redress if they lived in the mother and baby homes for more than six months. I do not understand what the difference is between living there for five minutes or six months. It is a trauma that continues for the rest of their lives. How do you measure those things? When we stood in this Chamber, when Helen McEntee was Minister for Education, and discussed what would happen with regard to sexual abuse in schools in Ireland, so many people said that had to be a trauma-focused, survivor-focused way of approaching it. It needs to allow people to speak, not to speak, to find a space and to not be retraumatising, yet here we are again, having this conversation, and there will be a delay. The Government has said several times, on so many Bills over the last year, that the Opposition never comes up with any solutions and only criticises it. The Labour Party is giving an excellent solution here, yet the Government's new thing, and I say new as if I have been here for years when I have not, seems to be to put a delay on things. I ask the Government to please not do that. It is unfair to the victims, the survivors and those people who suffered in our schools. When education and health is outsourced to organisations, that does not mean the responsibility for it can be outsourced. The State has had to pay a significant amount of money in redress, and rightly so. The religious orders, the other organisations and other unincorporated bodies, of which there are so many that I will not be able to name them all, need to be able to pay back and should be paying back, but they are not, because they are smart and they are moving their money around. Maybe this is possible because maybe a really rich organisation is able to move its money around, and I am just naive. What I am not naive about is the fact that people who have been educated in this country and have been in institutions deserve better, and we have to try better. The Government needs to catch up with the rest of us with regard to empathy and a trauma-informed way of looking at things, because this is not it, and putting that delay on this Bill is a disgrace. I would like the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, to take that back to Government and ask Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and all the other people who make up the Government to please discuss it. We are now looking at a situation where there is a solution which will help people. It will never ever wipe away the pain that those children, now adults, have endured, but it may do something to help, and it will perhaps be less traumatising and less retraumatising.

Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine a labhair ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. I commend Deputy Bacik on bringing this Bill before the House. I acknowledge those survivors and welcome them to the Chamber. They worked to raise awareness of this issue, often at considerable personal cost, long before it reached the floor of Dáil Éireann. This issue was brought to light because of the litigation strategy adopted by the leadership of the Congregation of Christian Brothers, as mentioned by other Deputies who have spoken before me. While the current leadership may not be directly responsible for the acts or the abuse themselves, they are undoubtedly accountable for how they choose to respond to that legacy. Their choices have had a direct and profound adverse impact on victims and survivors, not only in the past but continuing right up to this present day. I welcome again the survivors this afternoon. This Chamber cannot even begin to comprehend how distressing it is for them to have to deal with this order's leadership. In late 2022, this matter was referred to the Law Reform Commission. I would appreciate if the Minister of State could update the House on whether there has been any commission progress to address the legal loophole whereby unincorporated bodies are not obliged to nominate a person to accept service of legal proceedings on behalf of their organisation. Like Deputy O'Rourke, I am not from a legal background. For context, in 2017, the leadership of the Christian Brothers order chose to introduce a litigation strategy that has had the effect of obstructing survivors' access to our civil courts. This is secondary abuse. Survivors speak of years trapped in procedural disputes, unable to progress their cases. They describe being suspended in a legal limbo that delays healing, impedes meaningful engagement with therapy and causes ongoing retraumatisation. Survivors describe the litigation strategy as a continuing exercise of power and control over their lives. For many, it echoes the powerlessness that they experienced as children when they were abused by members of that same order. Survivors are often isolated and initially were not aware that their treatment was part of a broad litigation strategy. They campaigned tirelessly to raise public awareness and provided evidence, examined in the mentioned and award-winning 2023 "RTÉ Investigates" documentary. That programme revealed the litigation strategy, the extent of which we all know now. It brought national attention to the efforts being made by the Christian Brothers order to prevent survivors from pursuing their claims through civil courts. In seeking symbolic justice, survivors also commenced a campaign to rescind the freedom of Drogheda, previously awarded to an individual who, in 2017, presided over the introduction by his order of this litigation strategy. This message was difficult to articulate as the freedom recipient was not directly responsible for those acts of primary harm, and some public representatives spread misinformation and many refused to listen and to allow survivors to express their views. Numerous individuals and organisations, including One In Four, publicly supported the campaign and articulated the legitimate concerns underpinning it. In order to engage with public representatives, survivors of childhood abuse, rape, and torture, whom this Bill is designed to support, experienced little empathy or compassion, blanket refusals to engage, abusive text messages directed at supporters, and complicity by some public representatives as lawful motions were removed or interfered with by non-elected actors. There were extremely hurtful personalised attacks and misinformed victim-blaming in local as well as social media, and conflicts of interest resulting in victims of rape being refused the service they were entitled to by a rape crisis centre, for which Cuan, Ireland's statutory agency for tackling sexual violence, was notified. Arguments being made in media that it was the choice of survivors to be subjected to the religious orders' abusive litigation strategies were akin to 1970s and 1980s Ireland. Public representatives revealed and exercised deference to powerful religious leaders whose choices continue to harm victims. Most hurtful of all was that many public representatives ignored or refused to hear the harm which this choice of litigation strategy was causing. Seventeen victims who travelled to Drogheda to meet public representatives, paid for a meeting room, gave nine days' notice and paid for uneaten sandwiches at that meeting were largely ignored by those invited. Most of them did not even have the courtesy to RSVP and the request was very basic. The survivors wanted to be listened to and treated with dignity. I regret to say that most of these experiences involved elected representatives of the Labour Party at local, national and European level. However, it would be wrong to suggest this problem was confined to one political party. This reflected a broader systematic and political failure rather than a series of isolated incidents. I understand that these concerns were brought to the attention of Deputy Bacik in 2023 and 2024, including requests that concerns regarding the conduct of certain representatives were to be examined, but no responses were forthcoming. These events occurred in 2023 and are relevant to the forthcoming Commission of Investigation into the Handling of Historical Child Sexual Abuse in Schools. If survivors feel unable to secure a hearing from elected representatives today, it is understandable some may be fearful participating in the State process tomorrow. I therefore ask Deputy Bacik to meet these survivors and listen to their experiences. The survivors request that One in Four support them in this meeting. This legislation can mark a new chapter. I commend Deputy Bacik again. Survivors are grateful to her for bringing forward this Bill. They acknowledge her past work with survivors and believe that she will be willing to bring transparency, learning and accountability. Survivors have asked me to put on the Dáil record their eternal appreciation for the broadcast journalism of Michael Reade. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis. Without Michael's extraordinary work ethic and his compassion, they believe that we will not be debating this Bill today. I look forward to engaging with this Bill on Committee Stage and subsequent Stages.

I apologise, as I had to step out for a number of minutes to meet a group that I had a long-standing arrangement with. I thank Deputy Bacik again for putting forward this legislation. As I indicated earlier on, it is important legislation that aligns with Government policy but there are areas in respect of it that I need to give consideration to. I also want to speak in general about how we get justice. It is important from the point of view of survivors that we emphasise and recognise that justice in Ireland can only be delivered through the courts. The courts are there to deliver justice. In the first instance, when people are survivors of sexual abuse or rape, the first port of call, hopefully, is a criminal court where the perpetrator of the heinous crime can be held to account. That is the primary way that liability and criminal responsibility is apportioned and individuals can be held liable before criminal courts for their heinous crimes and attacks upon survivors. In order for that to occur, however, it involves a significant amount of effort on the part of the person who makes the complaint and proceeds and pursues the claim through the courts. We all saw it recently in terms of what happened in another jurisdiction north of the Border recently when you look at the process that had to be gone through in order for the complainants in that trial to achieve justice before the criminal courts. The criminal courts are where justice is provided in terms of the apportionment of criminal liability. However, justice can be delivered and administered through the civil courts. That is the mechanism that this legislation seeks to engage with. Even though an individual may be criminally responsible for the heinous act of sexual assault or rape, there may also be others associated with that individual who have a broader responsibility and a fiduciary duty that results in them have a liability for the actions of that person. That is why, in so many instances, in situations that arise where people are abused and assaulted by persons who are part of an institution, that institution can be held liable if it can be established that the institution did not take the necessary steps to protect individuals who are vulnerable, such as schoolchildren, who are within the responsibility of the person who carried out the criminal act. That is why, in many instances, it is necessary and appropriate for people to institute proceedings in the civil courts against unincorporated bodies that have a responsibility and liability for the actions of an individual. I know Deputy Bacik is not saying this, but there are many times when people do things on their own and the entity has no responsibility for it. If a member of a political party does something on their own without anyone within the political party being aware of it, the political party should not have responsibility for it. Where there are circumstances which are apparent that the unincorporated body is aware of the actions of the individual or has reports made to them about the dangerous actions of the individual and they do nothing about it, or, even worse, they move the person elsewhere in the knowledge that these serious allegations have been made, in that context, there is a liability before the civil courts that will fall upon the unincorporated body. In those instances, victims who come before the civil courts who want to institute proceedings should be able to institute those proceedings in a readily accessible manner. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that in circumstances where the unincorporated entity will not give a representative's name or will not nominate an individual to be a representative defendant, the court should step in by directing an individual who will be the nominated representative and defendant. The reason that is a form of justice is that justice does provide that damages are a remedy that are to be payable by a wrongdoer in respect of the offences that were committed by that wrongdoer or for which that entity is responsible for. I will conclude by recognising the important role that survivors play in terms of legislation. I have no doubt that this legislation was inspired by the narrative of survivors. I will be back here considering these matter in the Houses in due course.

In the first instance, I thank my own Labour colleagues, Deputies Ahern and Sheehan, and the representatives and speakers from other parties who supported this important Bill. I thank the Minister for his engagement on the Bill too. Listening carefully to what he said, he spoke in encouraging terms about the principle behind the Bill. He spoke about the need for people to be able to access the courts and secure redress in a readily accessible manner. He spoke earlier with great clarity about the current difficulties that arise for anyone who seeks to pursue an unincorporated association through the courts. Indeed, Deputy Cummins gave a pertinent example of somebody seeking to pursue the Christian Brothers. Deputy Ahern referred to the Christian Brothers too and having to name 120 individual members. That is the difficulty. The Christian Brothers, through the establishment of the lay-run trust, the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, divested a great deal of assets into that lay-run trust. That is precisely the mechanism that we are seeking to address in this Bill. I thank all of those survivors with whom I have spoken and who have been so courageous in coming forward over the years to disclose about the impact of abuse upon them. I thank the Minister for acknowledging the impact survivors can have on shaping policy. We are seeing that with the debate today on this Bill. It is important to acknowledge. Deputy O'Rourke commented that the Minister used the word "complex" quite a number of times. The Minister used it again in his response. I am disappointed that this is used as the device to justify the six-month delay. I was disappointed also to hear the Minister's reference to the likely publication date of that long-awaited Law Reform Commission report into unincorporated associations. I think the Minister said it is not due until early 2028. That will be six years after the consultation paper was published. My concern is that will then become another - the Minister was referencing it today - pre-emptive delaying device and that, in fact, the Minister will not be able to support any Bill until after that date. He did not indicate that the interdepartmental group report might be brought forward. The Taoiseach indicated on Tuesday in his response to me that this publication date would not be as late as May 2027 and that it might be earlier. I would welcome some clarity on that. I can speak to the Minister afterward about that. I want to come back to that point of complexity. Yes, there are complex matters here, but, at its core, this is straightforward. We are talking about a mechanism or legal tactic being used by religious orders. I have referred to it previously as a sort of "developer's wife" tactic, where the religious order bears the liability, as typically a male developer would. It transfers its assets into the lay-run trust as the developer would have transferred assets to their spouse - in a gendered way, typically to the wife - and the owner of the assets is therefore beyond the reach of legal accountability, given that the spouse does not have the liability whereas the person liable no longer possesses the assets. That is the simplest way to describe what this mechanism is. Our Bill is a way of getting around that and lifting the veil, lifting the obstruction and making it easier to sue because, as the Minister said himself, and I made a note of his word, it is implausible currently that you have to sue every member of a religious order in order to pursue religious orders as unincorporated associations. I should say I have some experience: I was taken to the courts as a student union officer, indeed threatened with prison, many years ago for providing women with information on abortion but we were pursued as individuals through the courts because we were officers of an unincorporated association and the union could not be sued as a students' union at the time. Therefore, I am well aware of the mechanisms behind this. Our Bill is very carefully drafted to make sure that it only applies in narrow circumstances. Under section 2, which sets out the circumstances where the legal curtain can be lifted, the wrongdoer is a member of the unincorporated association and the plaintiff was sexually abused as a child. Section 5 sets out how the court appoints the proper defendant. I thought the Minister quoted approvingly the device we put in here. We have set out very careful criteria for when an associated trust can be pursued. Therefore, the Bill is carefully drafted and narrowly focused. The Minister put particular focus on section 8 and the lifting of the proviso around the Statute of Limitations and indicated that that was particularly complex. I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that we are looking to provide for a sort of retrospective effect. That, of course, has consequences, but I am very happy along with Labour colleagues and, I think, colleagues across the Opposition to work with the Minister and the Attorney General’s office to address any issues in this regard on Committee Stage. The Minister proposes to defer this until Christmas Day, which Deputy Ahern described as the anti-Santa approach, although it is more like a Scrooge approach really. My concern is that that will delay our ability to confer with the Attorney General or move to Committee Stage. No doubt we will then be told to wait until May 2027 for the IDG report and then to wait until early 2028 for the Law Reform Commission report. That is just delaying justice and delaying redress for survivors. That is really important because it will mean that survivors will continue to face obstacles and obstructions in looking to pursue religious orders through the courts, because they will have to go through this crazy process where you have to name all the individuals, the orders may or may not provide the nominated name and so on. Survivors should not have to go to court. The other purpose of the Bill is to provide a leverage for the State in negotiating with the religious orders to get the fair share of redress paid. Currently, State bodies, and the Department of education in particular, are at a huge disadvantage in seeking orders to come forward and pay their share, as Sheila Nunan discovered. Deputy Sheehan referred to the difficulties and complexity in trying to get the religious orders to come forward. I think the language used was “a mixed response” from religious orders when they were asked to make voluntary contributions to the State. It was mixed because the State has no sanction. The State cannot say to religious orders that if they do not pay up voluntarily, then it will compel them, as there is currently no power of compulsion. At its core, this Bill is simple. It is about trying to unblock the current obstructions that lie in the way of pursuing religious orders. It is about lifting an obstruction to justice for survivors. So many survivors have come forward and asked that this Bill be progressed and that we see a speedier and more urgent response from the Government. Just yesterday, I heard from a mother whose son, who is non-verbal, was physically and sexually abused while in the care of a particular religious order. She asked what prospect there was for non-verbal children. That is a specific question and one of many that have been put to me. I submitted a parliamentary question on that particular issue. There are many heartbreaking stories of the distress, trauma, deep hurt and damage, and life-long consequences of abuse upon many survivors yet there is a failure to be able to secure accountability from the religious orders that were responsible in many cases. Others have referred rightly to the bigger picture here, that being, the immense power that the church and religious orders wielded for many decades through the State, and the sort of shadow welfare state that the Catholic church operated in running industrial schools, mother and baby homes, Magdalen institutions and many other institutions in which vulnerable persons, women and children primarily, were incarcerated for many shameful decades. The church and the religious orders continue to wield enormous power in our education system through the patronage model. Ninety percent of our primary schools are still under the patronage of the Catholic church and the religious orders, so that power remains. This Bill is one small attempt to get behind the power and the wealth, let us name it, of these religious institutions. The report that others and I referenced earlier noted €1.3 billion of assets held in cash and property by eight religious orders. That is an enormous sum of money. It should be accessible to survivors of abuse and to State bodies that are seeking to do right now by survivors whom they failed for so long. This Bill is aligned with stated Government policy and priorities in seeking to pursue and make accountable religious orders that have escaped accountability for far too long. The scale of this is astounding. I welcomed earlier the movements made on the commission of investigation into abuse in schools but look at the scoping inquiry of 2024. What does it tell us? There were 2,400 allegations of abuse in 308 schools, with more than a quarter originating in facilities for children with special needs. It is absolutely shocking. There were 884 alleged abusers in 42 religious orders. We only know what is the tip of the iceberg. We have relied so much on the bravery of individual survivors to come forward but clearly there is an enormous mountain of undisclosed trauma that is still there among many people who were abused. Listen to the accounts from Dunderrow and those women who are still reliving the trauma of being abused in a systematic, calculated fashion by Leo Hickey. That is the sort of trauma that we are now beginning to uncover. As the oppressive Catholic church doctrine is lifting from the laws of the State, and the Minister reminded us about that with the disregard law this week, which we welcome, we know now how much we have to do to do right by survivors. This Bill represents just one way that we can do right by survivors. I urge the Minister to drop the six-month delay. We have to oppose it. We want to see this Bill pass into law as swiftly as possible to do right by survivors.

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until next week's division time.